For me, shooting is a chore.
(I had a dream of using an armed drone for deer hunting...............The problem that woke me up was how to haul the carcase back to the shop for cleaning, skinning and butchering)

.................................................
assault
If you say: "I'm gonna kill you motherfucker"
That ain't criminal assault.
If, however, you say "I'm gonna kill you motherfucker" while holding a weapon, that is.

For me, shooting is a chore.
(I had a dream of using an armed drone for deer hunting...............The problem that woke me up was how to haul the carcase back to the shop for cleaning, skinning and butchering)

.................................................
assault
If you say: "I'm gonna kill you motherfucker"
That ain't criminal assault.
If, however, you say "I'm gonna kill you motherfucker" while holding a weapon, that is.

What's so nice is that the range is in my back yard, 100 feet from my door.. I don't have to talk to anyone. It's tough with hearing protection on, anyhow.

Click to expand...

Yeh, the kz for the venison is in my backyard = easy pull or drag with the lawn tractor.
I may bitch and moan, but when i shoot and kill, i find it satisfying. (Old skills and all that)
However, I do keep offering my son the option to "take the shot"(before him, I offered it to my brother---who also declined). Maybe he's afraid of missing, maybe he just doesn't like the sound and kick of the weapon?
The muzzle loader .50 not only kicks like a mule, but the smoke denies me the ability to see where the deer headed if'n it don't drop.

To the best of my knowledge, the state legislature has not addressed drone hunting.
I suspect that the kick of the weapon would drop the drone from the air.(I know almost nothing of drone capabilities.)

There seems to be an attack taking place on speech, and one of the more recent arguments in favor of limiting speech is that words are equal to violence.

Click to expand...

That depends on the speech.

If someone is inciting violence, issuing threats, or explicitly or even implicitly suggesting a threat or violence, then that is not protected speech. Just as hate speech is not protected speech or classified as "free speech" in most parts of the world.

And yes, that can be equal to violence. Take, for example, a person an in abusive relationship. The 'speech' in such relationships are often used as a tool and yes, it can be violent enough to have the victim living in fear for their safety. It is abusive and causes mental abuse and psychological damage, and is often treated as mental and psychological abuse when the abuser is charged. That 'speech' is not free speech, nor is it protected.

I've been called everything under the sun, yet it never quite felt the same as being punched in the face or kicked in the ribs.

Click to expand...

Now place yourself in an abusive relationship and the knowledge that those names often come first, before the punches and kicks or rapes begin. Those names or words, are tantamount to violent behaviour or action, because of context in which they are being used and because of how they maintain a level of abusive and are psychologically damaging and are often a precursor to violence.

Or place yourself as a minority or homosexual, for example, and you are called all sorts of awful names, and you fear for your safety because people who often use those names, often resort to violence immediately after. Not only that, those words are bigoted and hateful and are classified as hate speech. In most places in the world, hate speech is actually not protected, regardless of the damage it does cause, a lot of it physical.

In that case, can an Antifa or SJW, or whatever the label, violently demand that a passerby demonstrate their position on political topics? Is shouting into someone's ear because they don't want to "engage in a polite debate" OK?

Is it OK to use a well-placed elbow or knee to shut them the fuck up as a response to verbal assault? Probably not, because they tend to run in packs, wear masks, and scream stupidity.

In that case, can an Antifa or SJW, or whatever the label, violently demand that a passerby demonstrate their position on political topics? Is shouting into someone's ear because they don't want to "engage in a polite debate" OK?

Is it OK to use a well-placed elbow or knee to shut them the fuck up as a response to verbal assault? Probably not, because they tend to run in packs, wear masks, and scream stupidity.

Click to expand...

See, I don't trust your assessment of why people you don't like are shouting.

Seeking rhetorical tricks to justify physical violence as a response to words? So if someone is yelling at another because the other engaged in rape advocacy, is that violent enough to physically attack someone for shouting?

I mean, you know, in your opinion?

See, when potsherd culture warriors play supremacist games like you do, we simply believe you're a supremacist.

So is it okay? I don't know, it depends on the actual threat presented by "verbal assault", and your assessments of other human beings simply aren't reliable. Your track record is excremental.

No, violence equals violence, sure there are some statements which can be punished by law, threat of violence for example, you can be punished for the events your words cause, for example if you order followers to commit violent acts, you can be punished, charles manson for example. You can be sued for slander if you make untrue claims about a person that causes them financial harm, a court of law would need to decide. You can even sue for emotional distress, but that rarely ever wins.

No you should not punch someone for shouting, you could called the police for harassment but that is it, I guess if they are really in your face you might be able to get away with pepper spraying them, but you better be ready to get arrested and prove you were justified in court.

There seems to be an attack taking place on speech, and one of the more recent arguments in favor of limiting speech is that words are equal to violence. I've been called everything under the sun, yet it never quite felt the same as being punched in the face or kicked in the ribs.

Should we redefine certain speech as an act of violence? Can we really redefine violence to include unpopular speech?

Click to expand...

Speech and language are both subjective. There is no universal standard that correlates the noises associate with words. This is subjective and arbitrary. The result is the same noise can mean different things to different people. For example, the n-word means something different whether a black or white person says it. Who gets to decide when a particular noise is considered violent? What prevents false accusations based on this subjectivity? It seems like the PC police have appointed themselves the monitors of language. But to me, the words politically correct is an act of violence, since it has irrational people imposing subjective noises standards, using threats.

Words are nothing but noises and cannot hurt you unless you have been trained. The left has created a culture of emotional and psychological retardation, where its members have been conditioned, like a train seal, to react to noises, as a herd, on cue. What we need is to deprogram the left, so they can become less emotionally retarded and have fewer noise cues that can cripple their brains.

Words are nothing but noises and cannot hurt you unless you have been trained. The left has created a culture of emotional and psychological retardation, where its members have been conditioned, like a train seal, to react to noises, as a herd, on cue. What we need is to deprogram the left, so they can become less emotionally retarded and have fewer noise cues that can cripple their brains.

Click to expand...

I'm of the left and I don't react to these noises as a matter of conditioning.

I'm of the left and I don't react to these noises as a matter of conditioning.

Click to expand...

Stop lying↗. I mean, really. It's Wellwisher. Few things are more suspicious than a Republican answering Wellwisher by saying, "I'm of the left ...".

Why egg him on like that? See, if you were actually "of the left", you would at some point write an actual, coherent leftist argument. Opportunity after opportunity passes, and you keep failing. Not that anyone should wonder about the guy who responds to his own misogyny being called out by throwing a fit about calling Republicans misogynyistic, but if you're going to put in the effort of trying to sell the cheap lie, then yes, I'll probably notice.

Then again, I always wonder how many people are capable of observing the irony about posting anything in EM&J that is knowingly so full of shit. That is, it's EM&J; there seems to be something recursive about the irony of willful dishonesty.

Stop lying↗. I mean, really. It's Wellwisher. Few things are more suspicious than a Republican answering Wellwisher by saying, "I'm of the left ...".

Why egg him on like that? See, if you were actually "of the left", you would at some point write an actual, coherent leftist argument. Opportunity after opportunity passes, and you keep failing. Not that anyone should wonder about the guy who responds to his own misogyny being called out by throwing a fit about calling Republicans misogynyistic, but if you're going to put in the effort of trying to sell the cheap lie, then yes, I'll probably notice.

Then again, I always wonder how many people are capable of observing the irony about posting anything in EM&J that is knowingly so full of shit. That is, it's EM&J; there seems to be something recursive about the irony of willful dishonesty.

Click to expand...

What is the fundamental principle of leftism? Tolerance of others, to be liberal, to be open to others and against traditionalism/conservatism, instead of staying the same, change and adapt.

You demand ideological purity or else you become intolerant and hateful.

I tolerate any other viewpoint, I'm willing to entertain it, explore it, I hold to no beliefs, I conserve nothing, nothing is evil nothing is good, until some kind of proof is provided these are merely concepts we constructed,

You are very conservative in your actions, you can't entertain, explore or adapt across lines of good and evil you have constructed.

I may disagree with wellwisher, with Milo, with Shapiro, with Preger, with what ever the name of that self proclaimed white nationalist was that was punched, but I defend "to the death" their right to speak: let all hear their ideas, and let all dismiss them.

You on the other hand...

See what is happening is hateful lunatics spout their ideas on the internet, and people like you react, directing attention, trolls catch on and copy the lunatics, creating a whole counter movement of dogs waged by tails, eventually the trolls come to believe the hateful insanity they spout, and before you know it they vote trump. Had the lunatics been ignored to begin with, none of this would have happened.

I tolerate any other viewpoint, I'm willing to entertain it, explore it, I hold to no beliefs, I conserve nothing, nothing is evil nothing is good, until some kind of proof is provided these are merely concepts we constructed,

Click to expand...

Yes, we've heard that from many a crackpot, before, and it is what it is. Meanwhile, the point is that you need to stop lying. To wit, what the hell do your bleeding alt-right sympathies―

I may disagree with wellwisher, with Milo, with Shapiro, with Preger, with what ever the name of that self proclaimed white nationalist was that was punched, but I defend "to the death" their right to speak: let all hear their ideas, and let all dismiss them.

Click to expand...

―have to do with the question of not fraudulently representing yourself as something you aren't?

Besides, you can't write proper leftist discourse; the statement that you "may disagree with wellwisher, with Milo", and so on, doesn't really mean a lot when there is in fact so much room 'twixt the Left and them, and, furthermore, so much territory rightward of any of them that you can still explore, entertain, and tolerate. But none of that means you should inflict yourself upon others, and if you're going to advocate the suicide pact as free speech, at least be honest about who you are and why you're pitching it.

So, you know―

You demand ideological purity or else you become intolerant and hateful.

Click to expand...

―fuck your insupportable, dishonest distractions, and, you know, we're all very happy for your self love, but the thing is you're just not smart enough to pull off the basic trick:

See what is happening is hateful lunatics spout their ideas on the internet, and people like you react, directing attention, trolls catch on and copy the lunatics, creating a whole counter movement of dogs waged by tails, eventually the trolls come to believe the hateful insanity they spout, and before you know it they vote trump. Had the lunatics been ignored to begin with, none of this would have happened.

Click to expand...

Goofball potsherding aside, you still can't explain how empowering the bullies makes them go away, or stops the damage they do.

Nobody who ever tries to play the village idiot role you keep attempting can explain that part of the inherent demand: How does empowering bullying and supremacism help anything? And the reason none of these wannabe village idiots can answer the question has two parts. First, they don't actually intend to help anything but the bullying. Second, the jig is up if they actually admit they're advocating for the bullies. So they pretend themselves somehow heroic, proper rebels without a clue, but there's nothing heroic about this pusillanimous, braggadocius paean to sloth.

You know when your thesis breaks? When the "hateful lunatics" aren't traditionalist supremacists.

That is to say, no, when it was the feminists, queers, civil rights pioneers, and so on being classified as hateful lunatics, that's not how it worked. Rather, what happened then is similar to the phenomenon you're trying to recast: Birds of supremacist feather gathered together. Honestly, if your thesis applied functionally to anything other than waning supremacist privilege, American society wouldn't be in this situation right now because supremacism would have been trolled to death.

Look, dude, we get it. Your argument is representative of the people who, among my parents' generation, refused to listen to what other people would tell them because they didn't say it in a nice enough manner to satisfy someone who absolutely will not hear bad news. Go back and listen to the metal pushback in the eighties. And, you know, there was some sense of honor about it. When Twisted Sister↱, declared, "We'll prove to you it ain't true!" what Dee Snider referred to meant a lot. Megadeth↱ threw down, somethin' fierce, as did any number of bands. Anthrax↱ went way beyond the pale, but the PMRC was beyond the pale, and it's not so much a matter of reconciling my contemporary conscience to the fact of how hilarious their tantrum against Tipper Gore and Susan Baker was and remains, but, rather, I'm uncertain what part of the fight ought to bring me there, and the idea of using the phrase, "Cunty, cunty, cunty, cunt!" as backup vox will only ever be pale imitation.

And, besides, calling these assholes cunts is about as ridiculous as the porn version. I mean, sure, it makes for easy relief to call the President a cunt, but I'm tired of insulting cunts that way. And, really, could some red-blooded, heterosexual human male please explain to me why a cunt is so inherently nasty it needs to be the basis of a really foul insult? After all, how many of them want to "eat" one? Which isn't supposed to be a scary phrase. But if it's an insult, then, fine, it's amazing what they'll stick their faces in for the sake of genital jollies. So when he calls someone a cunt or a pussy, the heterosexual male, at least, is acknowledging that he cannot live without some aspect of a relationship in which he possesses at least some measure of abusive empowerment.

But, yes, you need things much simpler, so you adopt the petulance of how many self-aggrandizing wannabe Quixotes and build sosobra↱ from whimpers and whines about "ideological purity".

Your problem is a need for idiotic "ideological simplicity".

And, you know, sometimes simplicity is essential, but you can't convince me you're still some manner of neophyte. You've been at this long enough that you either have a clue what you're on about or never will. The one is unacceptable, though the other seems kind of hopeless. In any case, don't try to pretend to be the antithesis of what you advocate. It doesn't work, and all you do is troll the alt-right by portraying them as idiots. Remember, there are actually people who will believe you're some sort of leftist, and those are people on the so-called "alt-Right" who need examples of liberals and leftists to complain about.

See what is happening is hateful lunatics spout their ideas on the internet, and people like you react, directing attention, trolls catch on and copy the lunatics, creating a whole counter movement of dogs waged by tails, eventually the trolls come to believe the hateful insanity they spout, and before you know it they vote trump. Had the lunatics been ignored to begin with, none of this would have happened.

Click to expand...

The hateful lunatics were not just on the internet. They were on your TV screen, and your talk radio, and in your newspapers, on every station and every channel of any significance, taking up the majority of the time and bandwidth, repeating endless variations on their lunatic bs - for thirty years. Since before the internet we have now was invented.

The hateful lunatics were not just on the internet. They were on your TV screen, and your talk radio, and in your newspapers, on every station and every channel of any significance, taking up the majority of the time and bandwidth, repeating endless variations on their lunatic bs - for thirty years. Since before the internet we have now was invented.

Click to expand...

Again gradients and magnitude are beyond you: what we have now is magnitudes beyond the Rush Limbaugh AM radio hosts of the 90's.

Yes, we've heard that from many a crackpot, before, and it is what it is. Meanwhile, the point is that you need to stop lying. To wit, what the hell do your bleeding alt-right sympathies―

Click to expand...

This is all you got calling me a liar? Trump is president, your opinion is worthless, I don't care what you think of me, you can call me what ever you want, I only care to eventual break you, to have you at least in your heart know that you participated in creating this disaster. The fact you have shrivel down to calling me liar and a fraud and an alt-right is proof I'm close to breaking you.

―have to do with the question of not fraudulently representing yourself as something you aren't?

Click to expand...

and why should I answer such a loaded question?

Goofball potsherding aside, you still can't explain how empowering the bullies makes them go away, or stops the damage they do.

Click to expand...

Lunatics jabbering hateful insanity are not bullies, when they actually apply some kind of ACTION to their words, then maybe they are bullies. You empower them by the way, not I, you and your ilk gave them attention, and in your hate you fed them. Had you ignored them, had glorified blogs that now make up much of the online media not seen them as a click meal ticket, because people like you click on articles about these trolls to get your offense for the hour, then we would not have the alt-right in the white house now.